About your Search

20140226
20140306
STATION
MSNBCW 7
CNNW 2
CSPAN 1
KGO (ABC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 11
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
appalling to hear a dialogue that talks about using religion to discriminate against both myself and my community. you know, when i was in high sdoo school, i was actually assaulted because i was gay. as a result, i spent most of my life down playing the fact. you know, i don't ride in pride parades and i don't really wear it on my cuff, but i really feel compelled to really put it out there. you know, i don't think that we deserve a bill like this anywhere in this country. >> joining me now, damian klinko, the arizona state representative you just heard from and washington post columnist jonathan capehart. what made you speak about the bill the way you did, using your own personal reference, which as you said is not something that you are inclined to do. >> i used my own story because this is a personal attack against me and everyone in the lgbt community in the state of arizona. the community doesn't deserve this sort of treatment. and i don't think there's ever an excuse that we should sanction discrimination against a minority group. it makes me sad and disappointed in a state that
a bill that would allow businesses to refuse services to gays and lesbian by invoking religion. jan brewer vetoed the bill. but cecilia vega reports it will not stop a nationwide debate. >> reporter: it was the arizona bill that ignited a national firestorm. >> nobody rides in the back of the bus and everybody sits at the lunch counter. we fought that battle once. that's what this battle is. >> reporter: with polls showing a public shift on gay rights. a majority of americans now support same-sex marriage. the pressure for arizona governor jan brewer to veto the bill was fierce. major american companies came out swinging, calling arizona's law bad for business. in the end, brewer vetoed the bill. >> religious liberty is a core american and arizona value. so is non-discrimination. >> reporter: this as some of the most conservative states have become the new battle ground in the same-sex marriage war. a federal judge striking down texas' ban. so-called religious freedom laws like the one so fiercely debated in arizona, now seen as yet another weapon in the fight by supporters of the b
against gays on the basis of religion. but iowa congressman steve king is still defending that law. why? king says that sex orientation is what he calls self-professed behavior. and therefore he says business owners might not know just who they can or cannot discriminate against. >> it's clear in the civil rights section of the code that you can't discriminate against people based upon -- i'm not sure i got the list right, but race, creed, religion, color of skin, those kind of things. and there is nothing mentioned in there on self-professed behavior. the one thing i reference when i say self-professed is how do you know who to discriminate against? they have to tell you. and are they then setting up a case? is this about bringing a grievance or is it actually about a service they would like to have. >> so what mr. king is saying there is that customers could claim to be gay just to entrap business owners into discriminating against them so they could then seek legal reparations. here is a further question. is religion not by his wording also self-professed? >>> finally, "12 years a sl
burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, a rule applied to everybody. now what the law does, what the law would do, this law that the governor is looking at, is make a couple of amendments. first of all, it would not apply just to a person but to a business as well. so a business could assert a religious freedom interest. and basically what it would do is give businesses who refuse to serve someone for religious reasons a defense if they get sued. so that's how the law would change the current religious freedom restoration act. it would apply to businesses. they could go to court if they're sued and say, you know, it was our religious -- this is our religious freedom. it would violate it to serve someone if we believe that would interfere with our practices and beliefs. >> so, pete, there are people who are making the argument against the law saying, well, listen, maybe a muslim business owner will say, i don't want to serve christians or maybe the law could be used in some other way. somebody who had an objection, let's sa
's exercise of religion without showing compelling government interest. the orange states are states that if passed rfra-like provisions by court decision. you can see that in the wall street journal if you want to learn more about that. we are skipping with our colors. renÉe is waiting in california. good morning. caller: i wanted to correct one thing here. iticus that talks about man laying down with man. you guys get the views from the homosexual side but you also need to get the other side here. i don't believe in same-sex marriage. i hate the fact that people always want to compare homosexuality with racial. that has nothing to do with it. it is a lifestyle that they choose. i am an a store and christian, i should not be forced to make a cake for two women or two men. that is my right. the thing about it is, god will in the end.al say his were never changes. it is all the same. it was a sin before and it's a sin now. god does not hate the sinner, he hates the sin. you worry about the example of the wedding cake. that example also brought up in today's washington post in their l
because of their religion so she didn't think the bill made accepts. your organization release add statement today that read "this legislation would give homosexuals more protection than they did under the current law". given nobody could come up with example of the discrimination, how could they have more protection under a law essentially created to allow people who didn't want to serve gays getting married with things like photography or wedding cakes? >> well, the irony is that arizona does not currently have sexual orientation listed as a protected category in either their employment nondiscrimination laws or public accommodation laws. so the current state of the law in arizona is that anybody can discriminate against gays at any time for any reason or for no reason whatsoever. this bill deals only with when a government action conflicts with a person's sincerely held religious belief. it requires the person asserting that right to be able to prove that this is motivated by the religious belief, that that belief is sincerely held, and that the government action is a substantia
provides that, quote, government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion explicitly expanding that protection to allow businesses to cite a violation of their own religious beliefs as a defense if they're sued for failing to provide service. the bill was inspired by a new mexico supreme court ruling against a wedding photographer who refused service to a same-sex couple, and it massed quickly through the very conservative-controlled state legislature in arizona last week. in the last few days, pressure on brewer to veto the bill has grown from almost every corner. the arizona story crossed the threshold from political feeding frenzy into the mainstream. it was showing up on every platform yesterday, from espn to late-night talk shows. and though brewer claimed she was not influenced by cheers and boos from the crowd, it was clear from the outset that her state, whose reputation has already been tarnished over the years in the wake of the state's 2010 immigration law, had a lot to lose. on wednesday, the nfl, quote, began investigating the necessary steps to move next
, and they agree on this. that is sort of the old school, old time religion message. whatever societal problems you think are holding you back, it's not an excuse for you to is a advance. it really irritates a lot of young black men who say you're blaming the victim and you're saying you're putting all the burden on them to ignore all of these social ills that are real and not dealing with the social ills themselves. it's something that the president's critics don't like. but the interesting thing about president obama is that he knows that. he is actively engaging those critics. and he is pushing back. and he really wants them to agree with him that this is the right message to send to young black men. and you get the sense that this is a president who doesn't want to leave office not having given this message to young men, not having been a physical, living example of what he wants them to aspire to. he is a this aspirational politics is his core. that's his kansas grandmother talking to him. his upbringing with by his grandparents is what you hear. and he really does believe it. >> let's listen
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)